Hi Fatai,
Thanks for the comments/review.
Sorry, one correction in my email. The 802.3 YANG project is only
802.3cf. Sometimes I have managed to mangle the name together with the
802.1 YANG project (802.1cp) ...
On 23/03/2017 03:51, Fatai Zhang wrote:
Hi Rob,
Thanks for sharing the information.
I think you are talking about two types of Yang models, one is
Ethernet specific statistics, and the other one is Power over Ethernet.
We are trying to convert various MIBs that contain Ethernet related
functionality to YANG. Generally the MIBS were defined in IETF. Some of
them have been transferred to IEEE for ownership.
In the process of converting the content from MIBs to YANG we are taking
the opportunity to refine the contents to better meet current
requirements. E.g. CSMA/CD collision counters are generally not of
relevance on any current Ethernet hardware.
If my understanding is correct, I think your proposals are that some
part of each of them should be defined in 802.3cp or 802.3cf, and the
left part of each of them should be defined in IETF.
Basically, yes, that is correct.
I am a little concerned that how people can distinguish and judge
which part (e.g., of Ethernet specific statistics or Power over
Ethernet) should be defined in IEEE or IEFT?
A lot of the 802.3 Ethernet specification concerns functionality that is
baked into the hardware. The 820.3 specification defines (via Clause
30) an internal management API for configuration and retrieval of
operational parameters from the hardware.
So, the 802.3cf plan is that all of the Ethernet related parts of YANG,
or MIB, modules that just represent the values defined in clause 30 are
expected to published as part of the 802.3 Ethernet YANG modules.
However, 802.3cf do not want their standard YANG models to map to
parameters that are not covered by clause 30 (excepting a few more
obvious omissions) because that might mean that the YANG module cannot
be fully supported by current devices (e.g. if they don't have the
actual hardware present to provide the necessary counters).
So, the proposal is that some parts of the Ethernet statistics get
standardized in IETF instead (probably via NETMOD).
Concretely, my desire is for the following bits would be standardized in
IETF:
1) Histogram packet statistics (from RMON) (because vendors often
support Ethernet frames up to 9k bytes, but the formal 802.3
specification only goes up to 2k). To be added to
draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-04
2) Some counters that more generally apply to Ethernet-like
interfaces (e.g. LAG, IRB, or Pseudo-wire head-end interfaces). This
would include the number of packets dropped because they don't match the
destination MAC address filter. To be added to
draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-04.
3) The parts of power management that relate to power supplies rather
than Ethernet interfaces. Yan has submitted a draft to NETMOD for this,
draft-zhuang-netmod-yang-poe-management-01. I've not reviewed this
draft yet, but it may be that it should augment the entity YANG model
(draft-ietf-netmod-entity-03).
For example, regarding Ethernet specific statistics, how people can
exactly know which information could be better co-located in 802.3cp
and which don’t relate to 802.3?
I think different people might have different understanding and then
it will bring confusion to the industry.
Possibly this will be true, but once these base models are standardized,
I'm not sure that they are likely to evolve particularly quickly. I
would think that if the work is being done in 802.3 then any associated
YANG would be standardized there, similarly for IETF.
How about allow IETF define Yang models for everything of Ethernet
specific statistics since RMON MIB was already defined by IETF and
IEEE define Yang models for everything of Power over Ethernet (since
ownership already transferred to 802.3)? I personally think this
simple approach could make our life easier, J
I think that this approach may hit some of the issues above
(particularly the relationship to hardware and clause 30 registers).
Thanks,
Rob
Just some loud thinking…
Thanks
Fatai
*发件人:*CCAMP [mailto:ccamp-boun...@ietf.org] *代表 *Robert Wilton
*发送时间:*2017年3月22日23:21
*收件人:*netmod@ietf.org; cc...@ietf.org
*主题:*[CCAMP] 802.3 Ethernet YANG (802.3cp) and IETF overlap
Hi,
I'm participating in the 802.3 task force (802.3cf) to produce
standard YANG models for Ethernet interfaces and protocols covered by
the IEEE 802.3 Ethernet Working Group.
As part of my involvement with that group, I want to highlight a
couple of issues that arose in that forum that may be of interest to
various WGs in IETF.
This email, and accompanying slides, represents my personal views, and
do not represent any formal IEEE position. However, both this email
and the accompanying slides have been reviewed in an 802.3cf task
force meeting, and there were no objections to the content, or my
sending of this email to IETF.
I also raised these issues (with an earlier set of slides) as part of
the IETF/IEEE liaison meeting on 31st January, and the consensus was
generally supportive of this approach, with the agreed next steps to
contact the NETMOD and CCAMP chairs, which I have done, and the WGs
(hence this email):
As part of that YANG modelling work, there is an aim to define a clean
boundary of what manageability data should be specified within 802.3
and what belongs outside the 802.3 specifications.
The definition that the task force is converging on is that everything
related to Ethernet, covered by 802.3, that can be expressed in terms
of the 802.3 clause 30 manageability definitions, should be modeled in
802.3. I.e. broadly everything that is covered by 802.3.1 today. But
any manageability information that cannot be related to clause 30
definitions should be specified outside of 802.3. Note, where
appropriate, additional clause 30 definitions may be added to fix any
mistakes or glaring gaps.
To this end, there are a couple of areas between IETF and 802.3 that
don't necessarily look like they are entirely in the right place, in
particular:
1) The RMON MIB (RFC 2819) defines (along with other non-Ethernet
related content) some Ethernet specific statistics that would be
better co-located with the Ethernet interface YANG model being defined
in 802.3cp. Hence, the proposal is to subsume the appropriate Ethernet
statistics from the RMON MIB into a single combined reference set
defined in 802.3cp.
2) The RMON MIB also defines some Ethernet specific statistics that
can't be defined as part of 802.3cf because they don't relate to 802.3
clause 30 registers, but are still widely supported by vendors, and
should be modeled in YANG. The proposal is that definitions related
to these counters could be added as part of the Ethernet-like module
draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang-03
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-netmod-intf-ext-yang/>,
or perhaps a related Ethernet module in the same draft.
3) The Power-Ethernet MIB (defined in RFC 3621, but also referenced
from RFC 7460), was originally specified in IETF, but ownership later
transferred to 802.3 (via RFC 7448). Whilst working on the Power over
Ethernet YANG model it has become clear that not all of the attributes
defined in the MIB map to the underlying 802.3 clause 30 definitions.
Further, it looks like parts of this YANG model would be better
defined as extensions to the Entity YANG model being defined in
NETMOD. The proposal is that the parts of the Power over Ethernet
YANG model that can be directly related to clause 30 definitions (e.g.
/pethPsePortTable/) should be defined in 802.3cf, but that the
remaining parts (e.g., /pethMainPseObjects /) can hopefully be
standardized in IETF.
Do you have any comments, or concerns, on the 3 proposals above?
Regards,
Rob Wilton
_______________________________________________
netmod mailing list
netmod@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/netmod
